True. I would not expect a guarantee
that malloc/free would be suitable for objects, since they came from a language
that doesn’t have objects. I was merely looking for a way to
demonstrate manually calling both the constructor and destructor without
calling either twice, and that happened to work on my platform, and I think
will probably work on most.
Well, that and I didn’t know you
could use operator new and operator delete like this. We all learn
something new every day.
From: Michael
Nicolella [mailto:boost@mike-n.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:54
PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Boost-users]
std::vector< boost::shared_ptr<int> >::pop_back()
I would avoid malloc() and prefer the
global operator new… I’m not sure if the standard guarantees that
memory allocated with malloc is suitable for constructing an object in. My
guess is there’s no such guarantee, but there is that guarantee for
operator new. Or maybe I’m off my rocker.